posted at 8:48 am on April 22, 2010 by Cassy Fiano

Live Action has released two new undercover videos showing a Kentucky abortion clinic covering up statutory rape and giving medically misleading information. These videos show that, while Planned Parenthood might be the abortion giant in the United States, their clinics are not alone in their willingness to break the law.

The clinic Rose went undercover in is the EMW Women’s Surgical Center, a National Abortion Federation (NAF) center. The National Abortion Federation lobbies in Washington for abortion “rights”, and has branched out into Canada, Europe, and Australia.

In the first video, Rose gives her name as “Brianna”, her age as 14, and tells the counselor that her boyfriend is 31. The counselor assures Rose that she will not report the boyfriend, that she can keep it a secret, and advises her on how to get around parental notification via a judicial bypass.

Here, we see the counselor giving extremely false and misleading medical information. She determines that Rose is 14-15 weeks pregnant, and tells Rose that there is no brain activity, and that it doesn’t even occur until 18-19 weeks into the pregnancy.

As the video shows, the reality is somewhat different.

As per usual, this is breaking the law.

In the video, the EMW counselor named “Wendy” determines that Rose is “14 to 15-weeks pregnant” and Rose expresses that she wants to keep the situation secret from her parents. Though Rose gave no indication that she would face abusive parents, the clinic directs Rose to call Louisville attorney Mickey Adams so that she can obtain a judicial bypass around Kentucky’s parental consent law and avoid parental knowledge of the abortion or sexually abusive relationship.

In the state of Kentucky, sex between a 14-year-old and a 31-year-old is rape in the third degree and would reasonably be considered sexual abuse of a child which must be reported to law enforcement immediately. The clinic failed to ask the questions necessary to file a child sexual abuse report and did not communicate to Rose about the illegal or dangerous nature of her sexual relationship.

Rose, a UCLA student, says this sort of disregard for the law is typical at abortion centers. “In abortion clinics across the country, our undercover videos document the widespread cover up of sexual abuse. Abortion clinics like EMW in Louisville center attempt to fast track underage abortions on vulnerable girls, shut out parents, and blatantly ignore their legal obligation to report the sex predator to police.” says Rose.

Live Action has previously released videos of statutory rape cover-up at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in Bloomington, IN, Indianapolis, IN, Memphis, TN, Birmingham, AL, Los Angeles, CA, Tucson, AZ, Phoenix, AZ, and Milwaukee, WI. Prompted by a Live Action video, the Alabama Health Department placed the Birmingham clinic on probation after conducting its own investigation which found 9 legal violations. Rose urges officials in Kentucky to follow suit: “State authorities need to investigate this Louisville abortion clinic and hold them accountable to the law,” Rose insists. “Until they do, young girls will be put at risk of continued sexual abuse.”

The NARAL caterwauling just goes to show that feminists and abortion lobbyists do not want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. They want women to have abortions. Any kind of restrictions on abortion, even something as harmless as medical counseling prior to the abortion, sends them into a frenzy. They know that if a woman gets medically accurate information about her unborn child, she will be much less likely to go through with the abortion. They don’t want spouses to be involved — even if the child is half the father’s, they don’t want him to be able to have a say in whether or not his child lives or dies. They don’t want any kind of restrictions whatsoever — no medical counseling, no parental or spousal notification, nothing. Abortions should not only be legal, but they should be commonplace and taxpayer subsidized. It’s sick. It’s as if these feminists and lobbyists want there to be little abortion mills, with women just coming in and getting abortions over and over again.

And so we see that it is not just Planned Parenthood that is the problem, but the massively powerful abortion lobby as a whole. Abortionists are willing to break the law and manipulate and lie to young girls time and time again. These two videos in particular show why they’re willing to do so: money. Had Rose not been pretending, had this been a real girl and they were successful in selling an abortion to her, then they would have collected a cool $1,075. After all, there’s a lot of money to be made performing abortions — not so much encouraging the girls to keep their babies or put them up for adoption.

To all of you pro-choicers reading this: are you OK with this? Is this the kind of pro-choice America you celebrate, one where abortion clinics prey on confused, scared young girls and manipulate them into getting abortions? Where clinics routinely break the law and offer medically inaccurate information? Where the truth about the unborn is kept secret?

I would think that anyone who had any kind of morals would be outraged at what is happening in abortion clinics across the country — whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice. This is something we should all be able to agree on.

The lies, the abuse, the manipulation… it all has to stop.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I think you ones really don’t give enough weight to the enormous blow you deal to the abortion industry when you simply don’t have any. That’s probably the best and most powerful way to assert your values I think.

happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Well, see it’s not really about US. At the end of the day, I’m not really as much concerned about “dealing blows” to “the abortion industry” (what is that latter, exactly?) so much as protecting unborn children (and absolutely also raped thirteen year olds, while we’re on the subject), and others who have either limited or no ability to defend themselves, from the ones who are trying to deal blows to them.

Honestly, happyfeet, I see you all the time at Patterico ( have a different name there) and have never seen you so cavalier about protecting the rights of helpless human beings; this thread has been baffling.

inviolet… Mr. Patterico’s is a pro-life blog where I’m very happy to respect that. I don’t have a problem with normal pro-life people, and I never really spoke up for pro-choiceyness until Pam Tebow decided to get all superbowl with the lifeyness and Sarah Palin endorsed it.

Had Palin not dippily claimed the Tebow message for Team R, I don’t think I would have been all that bothered.

But I don’t think pro-life needs to be a part of Team R. Team R should be about individual liberty, and if limited government is to mean anything than the government and abortion should not be particularly intimate acquaintances I don’t think. Particularly in a year where social conservative issues are so wholly irrelevant to the straits in which our beleaguered little country find itself.

And the reason for that is that one side is all thinking “women’s rights; you can’t even see what’s inside her” and the other side is all thinking “invisibility doesn’t mean a live human being isn’t growing in there.”

Have long said that compassion isn’t a zero sum game; most women DON’T want abortions but don’t feel supported in a choice to keep their children – whether that’s emotional, financial or other support, short term or long term. We need respect and help for BOTH.

“No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg. ” –prolife feminist Frederica Mathewes-Green

Have long said that compassion isn’t a zero sum game; most women DON’T want abortions but don’t feel supported in a choice to keep their children – whether that’s emotional, financial or other support, short term or long term. We need respect and help for BOTH.

I agree that there’s some of that in the mix. Maybe a lot. But a lot of them feel they don’t have support cause they don’t have support. Frederica I think has it right.

You know inviolet you’re really taking all the fun out of this. I’m much more sympathetic to pro-lifeyness than I think it serves any purpose to let on… I just want it to take up residence quite apart from Team R. I don’t think government should fund it, and I think securing that non-funding should be far and away the chief concern Team R has about abortion on the policy level.

It should be, but Team R also needs to be about the correct limitations of those liberties.

For example, Team R shouldn’t endorse the individual liberty to seize government or private property as their own. Team R shouldn’t endorse the individual liberty to kill your aging parents that are a financial burden. How many more examples do you want?

Seriously, you really need to qualify your statements more in order to make a coherent point.

Honestly, happyfeet, I see you all the time at Patterico ( have a different name there) and have never seen you so cavalier about protecting the rights of helpless human beings; this thread has been baffling.

inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 2:02 PM

–So you are both lawyers, too? (I don’t consider Patterico to be a particularly pro-life blog, BTW).

I think I get what you’re saying but what I think about it is, I’m proud that there’s at least one political party that stands for the rights of helpless human beings. I’m especially happy that it’s the one that stands for the other things I believe in too: fiscal conservatism, limited government and individual liberty. And I think those latter two, in spite of what pro-choicers say, are the most compatible with the pro-life position.

Because re: limited government, government’s main job is to protect the physical lives of the citizens: by drafting laws against murder, against rape, against treason, moving to stop terrorism, etc. Included in clear, overt attacks on human life is abortion — so, included in Job One. And re: individual liberty, as others have pointed out, freedom is not freedom to do just anything if it hurts others. And even more to the point, how can anyone exercise any freedom if they aren’t first allowed to be born and live?

I’m not comfortable with squaring small government with the standing for the rights of the helpless human beings. Just cause some people think abortion is a Bad Choice, it isn’t necessarily a justification for inviting the government to police this realm. Particularly a government as venal and morally dissipated as our little country’s one.

I just am a pro-choice Republican is all, and I think that hews much closer to a vision of a little country what honors individual liberty.

happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 4:32 PM

But you really need to work on your argument.

You can’t simply say that Republicans need to support all individual liberties. The statement is too broad given the fact that many see abortion as murder. So you first need to support a claim that abortion isn’t murder. Since you don’t even try to make a distinction between abortion and murder, you end up arguing in favor of the individual liberty to murder.

Classical liberty is founded on the belief that all men are created equal; that they should be treated equally under the law; and that they should be permitted the widest liberty of action consistent with public tranquility and the safety of the state.*

Are you giving these options so that you can find the flaws in any other point other than birth?

Seriously, I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:42 PM

I’m getting at the criteria for recognizing Constitutional rights–that moment when we are endowed by the Creator. Currently it is based roughly on viability. If personhood is moved to the point of conception, the government has a greatly increased difficulty in protecting those unborn’s rights against the mother’s actions.

Also, I do spend more than 15 seconds rewriting most posts, trying to make sure they address the question asked, or that there is a reference for questions of fact. If you don’t think so then there are others we can each chat with.

Surgical abortions facilities can be shut down more easily than preventing women from adjusting their body chemistry to prevent implantation.

dedalus on April 23, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Are you implying that shutting down abortion facilities wouldn’t contribute to protecting those unborn’s rights?

Or are you implying that the difficulty in preventing women from adjusting their body chemistry during an ambiguous period following insemination should somehow be a compelling reason NOT to use conception as an initial point at which a being’s rights should be protected?

Are you implying that shutting down abortion facilities wouldn’t contribute to protecting those unborn’s rights?

blink on April 23, 2010 at 10:19 PM

It greatly would, that’s a given and would protect the unborn older than 6 weeks. Between 6 weeks and conception it is much more difficult. Between conception and implantation, nearly impossible to implement.

I bet this time around we could do a lot to circumvent abortion prohibition. People wouldn’t live under Christian tyranny willingly I don’t think. Plus also the US government has the moral authority of a diseased hooker.

Were you threatening physical violence against happyfeet? Ed and AP aren’t going to like that.

Jimbo3 on April 22, 2010 at 1:36 PM
I don’t believe that’s what I said, was it? Nice try though.

Cylor on April 23, 2010 at 12:28 AM

-So what did you mean?

Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 10:15 AM

I meant that a face to face meeting between happyfeet and myself would be very unpleasant, particularly from their perspective. I didn’t specify in what way.

I didn’t, for example, use words like “smoosh”. Or, for that matter, joke or accuse anyone of “taking the fun out of” an argument about the wholesale slaughter of tens of millions of innocent human lives.

Again, are you implying that difficulties involved with enforcement should influence the establishment of a law?blink on April 24, 2010 at 1:54 AM

By moving the legal recognition of life to conception you’d end up with the worst of both worlds.
1.) Women alter their body chemistry to abort earlier.
2.) Government officials have new legal tools to selectively intrude into a woman’s body.

Of course voters won’t approve that scenario, so you’d be left with a different version of what you have today. Some people still pointing to conception as the clear line, while over a million recently conceived unborns still die.

By moving the legal recognition of life to conception you’d end up with the worst of both worlds.

1.) Women alter their body chemistry to abort earlier.

2.) Government officials have new legal tools to selectively intrude into a woman’s body.

dedalus on April 24, 2010 at 8:42 AM

You’re not very bright. Please think before you comment. Ignoring the big problems with your arguments ruins your credibility and wastes both our time.

1. Shutting down abortion facilities wouldn’t constitute a worst of both worlds for pro-lifers. Most would be happy if that was the only law enforcement effort – an effort you already characterized as “more easily.”

2. Government wouldn’t attempt to manage women’s bodies prior to any confirmation of pregnancy.

You fail to demonstrate you are protecting the unborn from the moment of conception. “Confirmation of pregnancy”? An interesting standard, though different from the pro-life position. There are some obvious arguments they’d have with that criteria.